Response Selection Bottleneck Research Articles

Visual search proceeds concurrently during the attentional blink and response selection bottleneck.

It is well known that human information processing comprises several distinct subprocesses-namely, the perceptual, central, and motor stage. In each stage, attention plays an important role. Specifically, a type of attention-perceptual attention-operates to detect and identify a sensory input. Following this, another class of attention-central attention-is involved in working memory encoding and response selection at the central stage. While perceptual attention and central attention are known to be separate, distinct processes, some researchers reported findings that loading central attention postponed the deployment of perceptual attention needed to perform a spatial configuration search. We tested whether a similar pattern of results would emerge when a different kind of search task is used. To do so, we had participants perform a visual-search task of searching for a feature conjunction target, taxing perceptual attention while they are engaged in central processes, such as working memory encoding and response selection. The results showed that perceptual processing of conjunction search stimuli could be carried out concurrently with central processes. These results suggest that the nature of the concurrent visual search process is a determinant responsible for the dynamic relationship between perceptual attention deployed for visual search and central attention needed for working memory encoding and response selection.

Parallel and serial task processing in the PRP paradigm: a drift\u2013diffusion model approach

Even after a long time of research on dual-tasking, the question whether the two tasks are always processed serially (response selection bottleneck models, RSB) or also in parallel (capacity-sharing models) is still going on. The first models postulate that the central processing stages of two tasks cannot overlap, producing a central processing bottleneck in Task 2. The second class of models posits that cognitive resources are shared between the central processing stages of two tasks, allowing for parallel processing. In a series of three experiments, we aimed at inducing parallel vs. serial processing by manipulating the relative frequency of short vs. long SOAs (Experiments 1 and 2) and including no-go trials in Task 2 (Experiment 3). Beyond the conventional response time (RT) analyses, we employed drift–diffusion model analyses to differentiate between parallel and serial processing. Even though our findings were rather consistent across the three experiments, they neither support unambiguously the assumptions derived from the RSB model nor those derived from capacity-sharing models. SOA frequency might lead to an adaptation to frequent time patterns. Overall, our diffusion model results and mean RTs seem to be better explained by participant’s time expectancies.

Item-specific proportion congruency (ISPC) modulates, but does not generate, the backward crosstalk effect.

When both tasks in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm have compatible manual responses, a compatibility benefit in RT can often be observed on Task1 performance, in apparent violation of a strict traditional response selection bottleneck model. This compatibility-based backward crosstalk effect (BCE) has been generally attributed to automatic activation of Task2 response information, in parallel with attended Task1 performance. This paper tests a potential alternative mechanism of the BCE. Item-specific proportion congruency (ISPC) effects are previously well demonstrated, where learning of associations between stimuli and task conflict (e.g., that particular Stroop items are typically incongruent) allows rapidly and automatically elicited control adjustments in performance. Similar proportion manipulations have recently been shown to modulate the BCE in dual-task performance. If participants could similarly learn associations between particular pairs of stimuli and resulting response conflict in a PRP task, this kind of mechanism could produce relative speeding versus slowing of Task1 RT on response compatible versus incompatible trials. This pattern of data directly describes the BCE, and represents a potential alternative mechanism that does not require any response crosstalk, and would reinforce a stricter view of the response selection bottleneck model, if true. Over two experiments, we demonstrate that while the BCE is sensitive to ISPC-like effects based on Task1 conflict contingencies, the BCE is insensitive to relationships between particular pairs of stimuli and associated conflict. While ISPC effects can modulate the BCE, they do not generate the BCE. These findings reinforce the current Task2 parallel response activation account of the BCE.

Visual search proceeds concurrently during the attentional blink and response selection bottleneck

It is well known that human information processing comprises several distinct subprocesses-namely, the perceptual, central, and motor stage. In each stage, attention plays an important role. Specifically, a type of attention-perceptual attention-operates to detect and identify a sensory input. Following this, another class of attention-central attention-is involved in working memory encoding and response selection at the central stage. While perceptual attention and central attention are known to be separate, distinct processes, some researchers reported findings that loading central attention postponed the deployment of perceptual attention needed to perform a spatial configuration search. We tested whether a similar pattern of results would emerge when a different kind of search task is used. To do so, we had participants perform a visual-search task of searching for a feature conjunction target, taxing perceptual attention while they are engaged in central processes, such as working memory encoding and response selection. The results showed that perceptual processing of conjunction search stimuli could be carried out concurrently with central processes. These results suggest that the nature of the concurrent visual search process is a determinant responsible for the dynamic relationship between perceptual attention deployed for visual search and central attention needed for working memory encoding and response selection.

Sequence Knowledge on When and What Supports Dual-Tasking.

The constraints in overlapping response selection have been established in dual-tasking studies with random sequence of stimuli and responses as well as random stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). While this approach makes it possible to control for advance activation of upcoming stimuli or responses, it leaves open whether such preparatory processing can indeed influence dual-task performance. We investigated whether and how the sequence of stimuli and responses and the sequence of SOAs can be learned and used under dual-tasking. In each trial, participants (N = 28 in Experiment 1 and N = 30 in Experiment 2) were first presented with a random two-choice task followed by a four-choice Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT), presented in a sequence of length four (position sequence). The SOA (timing) sequence also had length four. In test phases, one or both of the sequences were randomized. Results showed that both position and timing sequences were learned and supported dual-task performance, suggesting that predictive processing with respect to timing and identity of stimuli and responses can help to circumvent the response selection bottleneck constraints. Furthermore, in contrast to previous work on acquisition of interval sequences in single tasking, we found that the sequence of what (i.e. stimulus) and the sequence of when (i.e. interval between two tasks) contributed independently to performance.

Concurrent deployment of visual attention and response selection bottleneck in a dual-task: Electrophysiological and behavioural evidence.

Visual attention and response selection are limited in capacity. Here, we investigated whether visual attention requires the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in a dual-task of the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. The dual-task consisted of an auditory two-choice discrimination Task 1 and a conjunction search Task 2, which were presented at variable temporal intervals (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA). In conjunction search, visual attention is required to select items and to bind their features resulting in a serial search process around the items in the search display (i.e., set size). We measured the reaction time of the visual search task (RT2) and the N2pc, an event-related potential (ERP), which reflects lateralized visual attention processes. If the response selection processes in Task 1 influence the visual attention processes in Task 2, N2pc latency and amplitude would be delayed and attenuated at short SOA compared to long SOA. The results, however, showed that latency and amplitude were independent of SOA, indicating that visual attention was concurrently deployed to response selection. Moreover, the RT2 analysis revealed an underadditive interaction of SOA and set size. We concluded that visual attention does not require the same bottleneck mechanism as response selection in dual-tasks.

Psychophysiological measurement of backward response activation in the prioritized processing paradigm.

Response-selection bottleneck (RSB) models provide an important account of dual-task interference. These models are thought to have difficulty, however, explaining the commonly observed backward compatibility effect (BCE), which is the finding that the speed of first-task responses depends on their compatibility with later second-task responses. One explanation of this phenomenon is based on a distinction between an early response activation stage and a subsequent response selection stage (e.g., Hommel, 1998). The former stage is thought to be influenced by both tasks and to be responsible for BCEs, whereas the latter stage implements the RSB suggested to explain many aspects of dual-task interference. The present experiments measured lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) to test predictions of this early response activation account. The results are generally consistent with a distinction between response selection and response activation, but they suggest that BCEs arise because second-task stimuli influence first-task response selection rather than because these stimuli activate the second-task responses with which they are associated. Thus, the results support an account of BCEs that is even more consistent with RSB models than previous accounts. (PsycINFO Database Record

Separating limits on preparation versus online processing in multitasking paradigms: Evidence for resource models.

We conducted 2 multitasking experiments to examine the finding that first-task reaction times (RTs) are slower in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm than in the prioritized processing (PP) paradigm. To see whether this difference between the 2 paradigms could be explained entirely by differences in first-task preparation, which would be consistent with the standard response selection bottleneck (RSB) model for multitasking interference, we compared the size of this difference for trials in which a second-task stimulus actually occurred against the size of the difference for trials without any second-task stimulus. The slowing of first-task RTs in the PRP paradigm relative to the PP paradigm was larger when the second-task stimulus appeared than when it did not, indicating that the difference cannot be explained entirely by between-paradigm differences in first-task preparation. Instead, the results suggest that the slowing of first-task RTs in the PRP paradigm relative to the PP paradigm is partly because of differences between paradigms in the online reallocation of processing capacity to tasks. Thus, the present results provide new evidence supporting resource models over the RSB model. (PsycINFO Database Record

Backward compatibility effects in younger and older adults

In many dual-task situations, responses to the second of two tasks are slowed when the time between tasks is short. The response-selection bottleneck model of dual-task performance accounts for this phenomenon by assuming that central processing of the second task is blocked by a bottleneck until central processing of Task 1 is complete. This assumption could be called into question if it could be demonstrated that the response to Task 2 affected the central processing of Task 1, a backward response compatibility effect. Such effects are well-established in younger adults. Backward compatibility effects in older (as well as younger) adults were explored in two experiments. The first experiment found clear backward response compatibility effects for younger adults but no evidence of them for older adults. The second experiment explored backward stimulus compatibility and found similar effects in both younger and older adults. Evidence possibly consistent with some pre-bottleneck processing of Task 2 central stages also was found in the second experiment in both age groups. For younger adults, the results provide further evidence falsifying the claim of an immutable response selection bottleneck. For older adults, the evidence suggested that Task 2 affects Task 1 when there is stimulus compatibility but not when there is response compatibility.

Are processing limitations of visual attention and response selection subject to the same bottleneck in dual-tasks?

Visual attention and response selection are processes that are limited by capacity. The present study focuses on whether visual attention is subject to the response selection bottleneck. This was investigated by conducting 2 dual-task experiments of the psychological refractory period (PRP) type. A visual conjunction search task was chosen as Task 2 in these experiments. Conjunction search requires the binding of the stimulus' defining features. This binding is performed in a serial search process in displays of different amounts of stimuli until the presence or absence of the target is correctly indicated. In Experiment 1, the conjunction search was combined with a 2-choice tone discrimination Task 1, and in Experiment 2 with a 2-choice color discrimination Task 1. Detailed reaction time (RT) analyses revealed concurrent performance of visual search to both tone and color in Task 1's response selection. In conclusion, visual attention is not subject to the response selection bottleneck.

Task choice and semantic interference in picture naming

Evidence from dual-task performance indicates that speakers prefer not to select simultaneous responses in picture naming and another unrelated task, suggesting a response selection bottleneck in naming. In particular, when participants respond to tones with a manual response and name pictures with superimposed semantically related or unrelated distractor words, semantic interference in naming tends to be constant across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) between the tone stimulus and the picture–word stimulus. In the present study, we examine whether semantic interference in picture naming depends on SOA in case of a task choice (naming the picture vs reading the word of a picture–word stimulus) based on tones. This situation requires concurrent processing of the tone stimulus and the picture–word stimulus, but not a manual response to the tones. On each trial, participants either named a picture or read aloud a word depending on the pitch of a tone, which was presented simultaneously with picture–word onset or 350ms or 1000ms before picture–word onset. Semantic interference was present with tone pre-exposure, but absent when tone and picture-word stimulus were presented simultaneously. Against the background of the available studies, these results support an account according to which speakers tend to avoid concurrent response selection, but can engage in other types of concurrent processing, such as task choices.

Locus of Backward Crosstalk Effects on Task 1 in a Psychological Refractory Period Task

Our performance on a task decreases when the task is in a dual-task situation than when it is in isolation. An important experimental setting for dual-task situation is the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, and the dual-task performance decrements in the PRP paradigm are referred to as PRP interference. The standard response-selection bottleneck (RSB) models state that the response-selection stage of the second task (T2) cannot start until the response-selection stage of the first task (T1) finishes, resulting in the PRP interference. Contrary to the prediction of RSB models, several researchers have found T2's modulations on T1's performance, and have suggested that T1's selection-related processes are affected by T2's selection-related processes, referred to as backward crosstalk effects. The locus of backward crosstalk effects is not clear, however, because RTs were measured in most previous studies. By using semantically unrelated stimuli and responses and by measuring T1's lateralized readiness potential, we examined the locus of backward crosstalk effects. We found that the interval between T1's stimulus onset and the stimulus-locked LRP onset was affected, suggesting T2's response selection starts before T1's selection is complete. The present result provided electrophysiological evidence focusing on T1's changes in favor of the hypothesis of parallel response selection in the PRP paradigm.

Locus of semantic interference in picture naming: Evidence from dual-task performance.

Disagreement exists regarding the functional locus of semantic interference of distractor words in picture naming. This effect is a cornerstone of modern psycholinguistic models of word production, which assume that it arises in lexical response-selection. However, recent evidence from studies of dual-task performance suggests a locus in perceptual or conceptual processing, prior to lexical response-selection. In these studies, participants manually responded to a tone and named a picture while ignoring a written distractor word. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tone and picture-word stimulus was manipulated. Semantic interference in naming latencies was present at long tone pre-exposure SOAs, but reduced or absent at short SOAs. Under the prevailing structural or strategic response-selection bottleneck and central capacity sharing models of dual-task performance, the underadditivity of the effects of SOA and stimulus type suggests that semantic interference emerges before lexical response-selection. However, in more recent studies, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type were obtained. Here, we examined the discrepancy in results between these studies in 6 experiments in which we systematically manipulated various dimensions on which these earlier studies differed, including tasks, materials, stimulus types, and SOAs. In all our experiments, additive effects of SOA and stimulus type on naming latencies were obtained. These results strongly suggest that the semantic interference effect arises after perceptual and conceptual processing, during lexical response-selection or later. We discuss several theoretical alternatives with respect to their potential to account for the discrepancy between the present results and other studies showing underadditivity.

Amodal Processing in Human Prefrontal Cortex

Information enters the cortex via modality-specific sensory regions, whereas actions are produced by modality-specific motor regions. Intervening central stages of information processing map sensation to behavior. Humans perform this central processing in a flexible, abstract manner such that sensory information in any modality can lead to response via any motor system. Cognitive theories account for such flexible behavior by positing amodal central information processing (e.g., "central executive," Baddeley and Hitch, 1974; "supervisory attentional system," Norman and Shallice, 1986; "response selection bottleneck," Pashler, 1994). However, the extent to which brain regions embodying central mechanisms of information processing are amodal remains unclear. Here we apply multivariate pattern analysis to functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data to compare response selection, a cognitive process widely believed to recruit an amodal central resource across sensory and motor modalities. We show that most frontal and parietal cortical areas known to activate across a wide variety of tasks code modality, casting doubt on the notion that these regions embody a central processor devoid of modality representation. Importantly, regions of anterior insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex consistently failed to code modality across four experiments. However, these areas code at least one other task dimension, process (instantiated as response selection vs response execution), ensuring that failure to find coding of modality is not driven by insensitivity of multivariate pattern analysis in these regions. We conclude that abstract encoding of information modality is primarily a property of subregions of the prefrontal cortex.

Dual-task performance is differentially modulated by rewards and punishments

Dual-task situations play a pivotal role in daily life and are subject to a research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. From a neuroscience perspective, the response selection bottleneck may be partly constituted by the dopaminergic system. The dopaminergic system plays a pivotal role in reward and punishment effects. In the current study we therefore investigated the effects of rewards and punishments as a potential modulator of dual-tasking processes. We examined dual-task performance in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, where the task order was either predictable, or unpredictable. Three groups were tested; a punishment group (N=14), a reward group (N=18) and a control group (N=16). The results show that in the punishment condition, dual-task performance is increased relative to controls (i.e., faster RTs). In the reward condition performance decreased relative to controls. The effects observed were of moderate to high effect sizes. However, the effects were only evident when task performance was unpredictable. These divergent effects of rewards and punishments on dual-tasking may be explained by the differential involvement of different dopamine receptors in rewards and punishments, and their effects on the amount and flexibility of task goals in working memory.

Information continuity across the response selection bottleneck: Early parallel Task 2 response activation contributes to overt Task 2 performance

Several studies of dual-task performance have demonstrated Task 2 to Task 1 response priming (backward compatibility effects), indicating some degree of parallel response computation for concurrent tasks and suggesting that the well-established response selection bottleneck (RSB) model may be incomplete. However, the RSB might be considered to remain informationally intact if this early parallel Task 2 response information does not persist across the attentional shift between tasks to contribute to overt Task 2 performance. We used an adapted psychological refractory period paradigm with an additional early transient Task 2 stimulus to examine whether response information generated for Task 2 in parallel with overt Task 1 response selection could persist across the bottleneck to influence eventual overt Task 2 performance. After controlling for potential indirect effects of Task 1 processing stage variability propagating onto Task 2 reaction time via locus of slack effects, we observed reliable and consistent effects of early Task 2 response information facilitating Task 2 reaction times. These effects were observed only when the responses to both tasks of the dual-task pair were compatible, under both univalent and bivalent response mappings across tasks. These findings may represent evidence of a variably sensitive response gating or suppression mechanism in dual-task performance and support the idea that backward response compatibility effects represent transient informational influences on central response codes, rather than later postbottleneck response execution processes.

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

Researchers have found no agreement on whether dual-task interference in language performance, such as dual-task interference from tone discrimination on picture naming, reflects passive queuing or active scheduling of processes for each task. According to a passive-queuing account, while a central response-selection bottleneck is occupied by the tone discrimination task, picture naming is held in a passive queue until the bottleneck is freed. In contrast, according to an active-scheduling account, participants determine the order in which the tasks proceed, monitor progress on the tasks, suspend picture naming and hold it in working memory, and determine when to resume picture naming. Here, we report a study that assessed the relative merits of the queuing and scheduling accounts by examining whether the magnitude of dual-task interference in picture naming is associated with individual differences in the capacity of monitoring and updating of working memory representations, as assessed by the operation-span task. We observed that the updating/monitoring ability correlated with the speed of picture naming and with the magnitude of the interference from tone discrimination on picture naming. These results lend support to the active-scheduling account of dual-task interference in picture naming.

Electrodermal responses to sources of dual-task interference

There is a response selection bottleneck that is responsible for dual-task interference. How the response selection bottleneck operates was addressed in three dual-task experiments. The overlap between two tasks (as indexed by the stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA]) was systematically manipulated, and both reaction time and electrodermal activity were measured. In addition, each experiment also manipulated some aspect of the difficulty of either task. Both increasing task overlap by reducing SOA and increasing the difficulty of either task lengthened reaction times. Electrodermal response was strongly affected by task difficulty but was only weakly affected by SOA, and in a different manner from reaction time. A fourth experiment found that the subjectively perceived difficulty of a dual-task trial was affected both by task difficulty and by SOA, but in different ways than electrodermal activity. Overall, the results were not consistent with a response selection bottleneck that involves processes of voluntary, executive attention. Instead, the results converge with findings from neural network modeling to suggest that the delay of one task while another is being processed reflects the operation of a routing mechanism that can process only one stream of information for action at a time and of a passive, structural store that temporarily holds information for the delayed task. The results suggest that conventional blocked or event-related neuroimaging designs may be inadequate to identify the mechanism of operation of the response selection bottleneck.

Crossmodal action: modality matters

Research on multitasking harkens back to the beginnings of cognitive psychology. The central question has always been how we manage to perform multiple actions at the same time. Here, we highlight the role of specific inputand output-modalities involved in coordinating multiple action demands (i.e., crossmodal action). For a long time, modalityand content-blind models of multitasking have dominated theory, but a variety of recent findings indicate that modalities and content substantially determine performance. Typically, the term ‘‘input modality’’ refers to sensory channels (e.g., visual input is treated differently from auditory input), and the term ‘‘output modality’’ is closely associated with effector systems (e.g., hand vs. foot movements). However, this definition may be too narrow. The term ‘‘input modality’’ sometimes refers to a dimension within a sensory channel (e.g., shape/color in vision). Furthermore, the linkage between output-modalities and effector systems may not be specific enough to illuminate some notorious twilight zones (e.g., to distinguish between hand and wrist movements). As a consequence, we will use ‘‘modality’’ as an umbrella term here to capture various sources of stimulus variability used to differentiate the task-relevant information and sources of motor variability used to differentiate responses. Many of the pioneering studies involved the observation of dual-task performance in two continuous tasks that typically consisted of complex action sequences (e.g., reading and writing, see Solomons & Stein, 1896; Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976). However, it soon became apparent that tighter experimental control was necessary to pinpoint the specific cognitive mechanisms supporting multitasking. The PRP paradigm: an experimental breakthrough. The development of the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm (Telford, 1931; Welford, 1952) provided a methodological breakthrough that allowed researchers to exactly control the flow of information in both tasks. The PRP paradigm involves two elementary tasks with a limited set of clearly defined stimuli and responses. The mechanisms underlying multitasking are studied by systematically manipulating the temporal overlap of the two tasks, which is achieved by varying the delay between the presentations of the stimuli for the two tasks (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA). The PRP effect refers to the typical finding that reaction times (RTs) for the second task increase with decreasing SOA, an effect that has been replicated in numerous studies with a variety of stimulus and response modalities (see Bertelson, 1966; Pashler, 1994; Smith, 1967). The RSB model: a powerful explanatory concept? The most influential and elegant account of the PRP effect has been the response selection bottleneck (RSB) model (Telford, 1931; Welford, 1952). A starting assumption of the RSB model is that tasks at hand can be divided into three successive cognitive processing steps, namely perceptual processing (i.e., stimulus encoding/categorization), response selection (i.e., deciding which response corresponds to the stimulus according to the task rules), and response execution processes. In a number of experiments, the duration of each of these processing stages was systematically manipulated for each of the two tasks (see Pashler, 1994). As a result, the most convincing hypothesis to accommodate the corresponding findings was the assumption that perceptual processing and response L. Huestegge (&) RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany e-mail: lynn.huestegge@psych.rwth-aachen.de

A Unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain

Human information processing is characterized by bottlenecks that constrain throughput. These bottlenecks limit both what we can perceive and what we can act on in multitask settings. Although perceptual and response limitations are often attributed to independent information processing bottlenecks, it has recently been suggested that a common attentional limitation may be responsible for both. To date, however, evidence supporting the existence of such a "unified" bottleneck has been mixed. Here, we tested the unified bottleneck hypothesis using time-resolved fMRI. Experiment 1 isolated brain regions involved in the response selection bottleneck that limits speeded dual-task performance. These same brain regions were not only engaged by a perceptual encoding task in Experiment 2, their activity also tracked delays to a speeded decision-making task caused by concurrent perceptual encoding (Experiment 3). We conclude that a unified attentional bottleneck, including the inferior frontal junction, superior medial frontal cortex, and bilateral insula, temporally limits operations as diverse as perceptual encoding and decision-making.